🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <6998@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>In article <8222@gollum.twg.com> david@twg.com (David S. Herron) writes:
>> In article <6944@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>> >If you're not going to run AmigaOS, why get an Amiga?
>> Y'know.. we've got all these '386 clones scattered around the company
>> on which the *ONLY* OS is System V ..
>Which is *why* it doesn't make sense to run UNIX on am Amiga... because those
>386 clones are out there, do all the same things, and are *CHEAPER*. I expect
>Amiga with UNIX to cost about as much as a NeXT, and the NeXT has a much better
>UNIX (no, not because it's BSD. BSD sucks. It's because it's Mach).

I expect that Unix running on Amiga would give me a much faster/nicer 
environment than a 386 clone or a NeXT (tho' comparing to NeXT is much
closer in those terms).  The NeXT dies in my book because I'm interested
in working with X, not NeXTStep.  Yes I can get X for it, but that's not
a Standard Feature of the system and, most importantly, the Interface
Builder doesn't generate X code.

So to compare an Amiga with Unix to a '386 -- The A3000 has a much faster
bus (20 MByte/sec vs. ~1-3 MByte/sec; unless I get a Tyan machine but that
runs me $10,000).  The Amiga also has SCSI-II coming in at somewhere
around 1MB/sec - 5 MB/sec (depending on drive); what the speed of
ESDI interfaces?  I was depressed a bit when cbm.com guys said recently
that the X server on Unix doesn't use the custom chips.

Another consideration is hardware reliability.  These 386 clones around
here simply haven't impressed me with their Solidness and Reliability...




-- 
<- David Herron, an MMDF & WIN/MHS guy, <david@twg.com>
<- Formerly: David Herron -- NonResident E-Mail Hack <david@ms.uky.edu>
<-
<- Use the force Wes!